It is no secret that the BJP in Tamil Nadu has been the subject of multiple jokes following its unsuccessful run in the RK Nagar elections. DropTaxi, an inter-city taxi booking facilitator, decided to use the party’s failure to poll more votes than NOTA as a concept for its satirical promotion campaign, and the BJP is seeing red. They have demanded that the ads be removed.

According to DropTaxi, BJP supporters have been calling the company’s call centre, threatening to take them to court over the matter.

The advertisement appeared in Tamil magazine Tuglaq on Tuesday. It reads ‘Tamarai pole…NOTAvai vida… Kuraivana..veliyur…taxi rate’. It roughly translates to: “Your fare for the trips out of town will be more like the Lotus and less than NOTA.”

It clearly takes a dig at the BJP’s performance while promoting the company’s USP, which is to charge customers only for the one way trip as opposed to the double rate that taxis usually charge for trips outside the city.

With images of music composer Ilayaraja, singer SP Balasubramaniyam, actors Mohan and Revathi embossed on it, it clearly indicates that lines are meant to be a twist on the ‘Mandram Vantha’ song from the film ‘Mouna Raagam’.

The company’s managing director Srinivasan tells TNM that they have received multiple calls last week, complaining about the advertisement.

In one alleged recording from a caller to the taxi service, the BJP supporter can be heard telling the customer care executive, “You have hurt so many people for your publicity. Do you know what great efforts are being carried out to protect Hinduism? For business, you have insulted a party like this. This is a disgusting mindset. Even a sex worker won’t do something so disgusting.”

The caller further says, “Tell me what gave you the bravery to do this? You just thought nobody from BJP would attack you? If you are born to one father, will you do this with the DMK which lost its deposit? Are you scared they will hit you? We won’t hit you.”

When TNM contacted the state BJP unit over the issue, they distanced themselves from the caller. They, however, made it clear that they wants the ads to be removed.

“This is very irresponsible on the part of the company. Through these ads, they have not only insulted the BJP but they have also mocked the entire voting process and the concept of NOTA. They should remove the ad,” says BJP leader Narayanan Tirupathi. “As far as the calls are concerned, the company could be doing it themselves in order to gain more publicity,” he alleges.

The cab aggregator however, is unperturbed by these demands.

“We will not remove the ads because we have the freedom of expression. We are merely commenting on the political scenario and have released a series of ads mocking several other instances as well,” says Srinivasan. “The Tamil Nadu BJP unit is being too sensitive and doesn’t have a sense of humour,” he adds.

The company has also commented on the 2G verdict, the alleged bribery of voters in RK Nagar and even Superstar Rajinikanth’s political entry.

Speaking to TNM, Aditya CS, the proprietor of Sharpshooters and the brain behind the ad campaign says, “The BJP had nothing to say when our other ads released and no other party has reacted adversely. Our creatives are going to continue commenting on the political situation in Tamil Nadu. If they get offended, so be it.”https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tn-taxi-company-ad-takes-sly-dig-bjp-hurt-national-party-wants-it-removed-74334

Related posts

Maintaining that journalists should be allowed to exercise freedom of expression, the Supreme Court on Monday said a particular piece of wrong reporting should not be held against them forever.

“You must allow freedom of expression…There may be some kind of wrong reporting… But don’t hold on to it forever,” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of IndiaDipak Misra said dismissing a special leave petition filed by a Bihar politician’s daughter to revive a criminal defamation case against senior journalists Rajdeep Sardesai, Raghav Bahl and others.

Rahmat Fatima Amanullah – daughter of former Bihar minister Parveen Amanullah – had challenged the Patna High Court’s order quashing criminal defamation proceedings initiated by her against Sardesai and Bahl for allegedly defaming her by telecasting certain reports on Hindi news channel IBN 7 in 2011 regarding her alleged involvement in a land allotment scam in the state.

Her father Afzal Amanullah is a former bureaucrat.Rahmat Fatima Amanullah was allotted a piece of land to set up a factory at Bihiya in Bhojpur district of Bihar in 2010 allegedly in violation of norms and the TV channel had telecast certain reports on it.Following the telecast, she had filed a criminal defamation case against Sardesai – who was Editor-in-Chief cum Chief Executive Officer of IBN Network and Bahl, who was Founding/Controlling Shareholder & Managing Director of Network 18 that telecast the news.

But by its September 12, 2017 order, the High Court quashed the October 29, 2011 order of a First Class Judicial Magistrate in Patna who had summoned Sardesai and Behl after holding that there was a “prima facie case” against them for the offences of defamation and criminal conspiracy under Section 500 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

It was this order of the High Court which was challenged by Rahmat Fatima Amanullah before the Supreme Court.Contending that the news story done by the TV channel on the said land allocation was wrong, she wanted the top court to revive her defamation case against the journalists

Related posts

Leave it to Oprah.While receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at Sunday’s Golden Globes, she managed to do that difficult thing that she makes look so easy: She focused the themes and surging energies of a specific moment and distilled its messages and its painful essence — all while making viewers feel as though she was speaking directly to each one of them as individuals.Most of the Golden Globes telecast — while certainly amped up by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements and the personal testimonies that powered them — generally felt more or less like a normal awards telecast. There was clearly more pointed energy flowing through the event, and there were quite blunt, brutal, and welcome assessments of power dynamics, which began with Seth Meyers’ surgically precise, excellent opening monologue and extended to Natalie Portman pointing out that all the dramatic film director nominees were all men. Many winners gave fine speeches, and quite of few of them eloquently expounded on themes of intersectionality, gender, race, class, and the marginalization and abuse of the powerless.

But none of those other presenters or winners were Oprah. As the highlight reel of her accomplishments made clear, she’s important in many different spheres. But all of her empires were built on this unshakable foundation: She’s a master broadcaster. She connects.

In her speech, she painted a picture of herself as a young girl, awed by “elegant” award-winner Sidney Poitier, who was honored at a Golden Globes broadcast she saw decades ago. She tied that vision to the prospect of young girls today seeing her get her DeMille Award — and being the first African-American woman to do so.

And in a heartbreaking, necessary way, she brought a new name to the collection of stories every single one of us need to know.

Briefly, eloquently, she told the story of Recy Taylor, a woman who brought her brutal rape case to the attention of NAACP officials — including Rosa Parks, who investigated the crime.

“Recy Taylor died 10 days ago,” Winfrey said. “She lived too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. Women were not believed.”

That time is over, Oprah told us, and when Oprah tells you a thing, you want to believe it. More work needs to be done, as Oprah pointed out, in factories, in offices, in science labs, on film and TV sets. She was clear about the fact that this movement is in its beginning stages, not at an end. But when she paid tribute to the power of the press to tell the truth, when she celebrated people — many of them women — who told their stories, and when she talked about the justice Recy Taylor didn’t get, it was hard to think about these things as abstractions. I don’t know about you, but Oprah made me feel these things in a cathartic way.

I tried not to cry during her speech, I really did. But I lost that battle as she neared the close of Taylor’s story. Taylor died after living a long life, a life she built after going through something unthinkable. Being recalled and celebrated by one of the most famous women in the world — it wasn’t justice, but it was something. It was certainly something.

In a room full of master storytellers, Oprah showed them all how it was done. Oprah united the famous and the unknown, the powerful and the powerless, the farm worker and the film star.

As she built to the close of her speech, with the crowd on their feet, Oprah told those who oppress and bully and assault that their time was up.

Time will tell if she was right. Maybe she won’t be; maybe the entire night was all so much well-orchestrated, well-intentioned theater. But in that moment, it felt like having Oprah on the side of the avenging army of women would make the movement unstoppable.

We can only hope.

Here is the full transcript of Oprah Winfrey‘s speech at the 2018 Golden Globes, when she won the honorary Cecil B. DeMille award for outstanding contributions to the world of entertainment.

Add Interest

In 1964, I was a little girl sitting on the linoleum floor of my mother’s house in Milwaukee watching Anne Bancroftpresent the Oscar for best actor at the 36th Academy Awards. She opened the envelope and said five words that literally made history — “The winner is Sidney Poitier.”

Up to the stage came the most elegant man I ever remembered. His tie was white, his skin was black — I’d never seen a black man being celebrated like that. I’ve tried many, many times to explain what a moment like that means to a little girl, a kid watching from the cheap seats as my mom came through the door bone-tired from cleaning other people’s houses.

But all I can do is quote and say that the explanation [is] in Sidney’s performance in “Lilies of the Field,” ‘Amen, amen. Amen, amen.’ In 1982 Sidney received the Cecil B. Demille Award right here at the Golden Globes, and it is not lost on me that at this moment, there are some little girls watching as I become the first black woman to be given this same award.

It is an honor — it is an honor and it is a privilege to share the evening with all of them and also with the incredible men and women who have inspired me, who challenged me, who sustained me and made my journey to this stage possible. Dennis Swanson, who took a chance on me for “A.M. Chicago,” waw me on the show and said to Steven Spielberg, “Yes, she’s Sophia in ‘The Color Purple;’” Gayle, who’s been the definition of what a friend is; and Stedman who’s been my rock – just to name a few.

I want to thank the Hollywood Foreign Press Association because we know the press is under siege these days. We also know it’s the insatiable dedication to uncovering the absolute truth that keeps us from turning a blind eye to corruption and to injustice. To — to tyrants and victims, and secrets and lies. I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this. What I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have. And I’m especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories. Each of us in this room are celebrated because of the stories that we tell, and this year we became the story.

But it’s not just a story affecting the entertainment industry. It’s one that transcends any culture, geography, race, religion, politics, or workplace. So I want tonight to express gratitude to all the women who have endured years of abuse and assault because they, like my mother, had children to feed and bills to pay and dreams to pursue.

They’re the women whose names we’ll never know. They are domestic workers and farm workers. They are working in factories and they work in restaurants and they’re in academia, engineering, medicine, and science. They’re part of the world of tech and politics and business. They’re our athletes in the Olympics and they’re our soldiers in the military.

And there’s someone else, Recy Taylor, a name I know and I think you should know, too. In 1944, Recy Taylor was a young wife and mother walking home from a church service she’d attended in Abbeville, Alabama, when she was abducted by six armed white men, raped, and left blindfolded by the side of the road, coming home from church. They threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone, but her story was reported to the NAACP where a young worker by the name of Rosa Parks became the lead investigator on her case, and together they sought justice. But justice wasn’t an option in the era of Jim Crow. The men who tried to destroy her were never prosecuted. Recy Taylor died 10 days ago, just shy of her 98th birthday. She lived, as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up. Their time is up.

And I just hope — I just hope that Recy Taylor died knowing that her truth, like the truth of so many other women who were tormented in those years, and even now tormented, goes marching on. It was somewhere in Rosa Parks’ heart almost 11 years later, when she made the decision to stay seated on that bus in Montgomery, and it’s here with every woman who chooses to say, “Me too.” And every man — every man who chooses to listen.

In my career, what I’ve always tried my best to do, whether on television or through film, is to say something about how men and women really behave. To say how we experience shame, how we love and how we rage, how we fail, how we retreat, persevere, and how we overcome. I’ve interviewed and portrayed people who’ve withstood some of the ugliest things life can throw at you, but the one quality all of them seem to share is an ability to maintain hope for a brighter morning, even during our darkest nights.

So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say “Me too” again. Thank you.

Related posts

Aadhaar based on flawed technology, prone to data breach, SC told

5-judge Constitution Bench to begin hearing of petitions against Aadhaar on Jan 17

It has given rise to “surveillance, breach of privacy and identify theft of individuals”, says petitioner.

Almost ten days before a 5 constitution judge bench of the Supreme Court of India begins final hearing in the Aadhaar case, an affidavit has been filed in the top court assailing the government’s 12 digit biometric identification project.

The affidavit filed by writer Kalyani Shankar Menon, one of the petitioners in the case, relies on affidavits of experts in the field of food security, data protection and RTI replies to make out a case that Aadhar is based on flawed technology and is leading to enormous data breaches.

“Reports by privacy and security researchers indicate that such breaches have already affected 135 million Indians. These data breaches are in flagrant violation of Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act read with Regulations 6 and 7 of the Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016,” writer-activist Kalyani Shankar Menon said in her rejoinder affidavit.

Filed ahead of the January 17 Constitution Bench hearing of petitions challenging the validity of the Aadhaar Act, the affidavit cited research done by various experts and RTI replies to suggest that the scheme was flawed.“It is submitted that Aadhaar is an insecure, unreliable, unnecessary and inappropriate technology project which is being foisted with coercion on the most vulnerable section of Indians and is threatening their constitutional and legal rights and entitlements every day,” the affidavit read.. It gives rise to surveillance, breach of privacy and identity theft of individuals and is in violation of their rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.’

Attacking government contention that Aadhaar will go a long way in prevention duplication of PAN cards, the affidavit states that the problem of PAN duplication has been overstated. There are only 10.52 lakh duplicate PANs among PANs given out to nearly 29 crore individuals. This works out to less than 0.4% and the necessity of putting the entire population of the country through the process of Aadhaar, even as there are other mechanisms which are already underway for detecting duplicate PANs.

Menon submitted that it gave rise to “surveillance, breach of privacy and identify theft of individuals” in violation of their right to equality, right to freedom and right to privacy.The Supreme Court had on December 15 extended the deadline for linking of Aadhaar for all services and schemes, including mobile phone numbers, to March 31 next year.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of IndiaDipak Misra had said the deadline for Aadhaar-linking of mobile phone numbers stood extended from February 6, 2018 to March 31, 2018.The order extending the deadline for linking of Aadhaar shall also be applicable to all state governments, besides the Central government and its departments, the top court had said.

While choosing not to stay the government’s orders and notifications on Aadhaar, it had fixed January 17 for final Constitution Bench hearing to decide the petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar Act and related notifications.

The December interim order had come on pleas for stay on various notifications issued by the government making Aadhaar-linking mandatory with 139 various services and schemes.

Affidavit also alleges that the government insistence of ‘seeding’ or practice of incorporating the Aadhaar number into several databases furthers the risk of identity theft.

The affidavit also highlights the failure of Aadhaar related biometric authentications because electricity or internet related failures or because machines are unable to read / scan biometrics correctly. “As per the Economic Survey 2016-17, these authentication failures are as high as 49% in some states,” the affidavit says.

The SC today also issued a notice to the Centre seeking its response to the same writ petition

This petition, filed by members of the LGBTQ community, said they live in fear of the police because of their sexual preferences

Section 377: A three-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra on Monday said the apex court would reexamine the Constitutional validity of Section 377.

NEW DELHI: Thanks to the right to privacy being deemed a fundamental right, the Supreme Court (SC) today agreed to reconsider its 2013 decision+ which criminalised gay sexual relations and said it will review Section 377 of Indian Penal Code that makes such relations a crime.
The SC today also issued a notice to the Centre seeking its response to a writ petition filed by five members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community, who said they live in fear of police because of their natural sexual orientation and preferences.

The apex court also referred to a Constitution bench the petition seeking to decriminalise consensual sex between LGBTQ adults.

In December 2013, the SC set aside the Delhi High Court‘s 2009 verdict decriminalising homosexuality.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the SC’ s December 2013 judgment upholding the validity of Section 377 – which says sexual intercourse between consenting adults of the same gender is a crime – appears to hurt the sexual preferences of individuals.

The three-judge bench took into account views expressed in another judgment in August, which gave the right to privacy the status of a fundamental right. That judgment was also in favour of respecting the freedom of individuals to their sexual orientation.

After the SC’s privacy judgment in August, activists and lawyers working for LGBTQ community made a strong case for the rights of sexual minorities. At the time, activist Gautam Bhan said SC’s reading of the right to privacy as an aspect of dignity and equality, particularly in the case of LGBTQ rights, was welcome.

‘Section 377 repeal matter of formality now’

“We could have gone to court on privacy grounds. But we didn’t because that is not acceptance. It is just tolerance that favours the elites who can afford to conduct their lives behind closed doors. The judgment is much more than that. It has spoken of privacy with dignity and equality. It reaffirms the Delhi High Court judgment in speaking of sexuality within the framework of constitutionality,” Bhan said.

After the SC announced its decision today, LGBTQ activists and supporters welcomed the move.

We need to welcome it. We still have hope from Indian judiciary. We are living in 21st century. All politicians & political parties must break their silence & support individual’s sexuality: Akkai, LGBT Activist on SC bench to reconsider constitutional validity of section 377

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted by British 153 years ago in 1860, terms consensual anal sex an “unnatural offence” and provides punishment equivalent to that for the offence of rape under Section 376. It even outlaws oral sex between man and woman, while holding that only penile-vaginal sex was not “against the order of nature”.

Top government sources told NDTV they would “go by the court” and not push for criminalising gay sex, commenting that decriminalisation is a global trend.

Gay rights activists across the country exulted over the Supreme Court ruling that said “societal morality changes from age to age. Law copes with life and accordingly change takes place”.

The “section of people who exercise their choice should never remain in a state of fear”, said the judges.

The Supreme Court also noted that “choice can’t be allowed to cross the boundaries of law but the confines of law can’t trample or curtail the inherent right embedded in an individual under Article 21, the right to life and liberty.”

Under the law, those convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code face up to 10 years in jail.

The top court acted on the petition by Aman Nath, the owner of Neemrana hotels, Navtej Johar, a classical dancer, celebrity chef Ritu Dalmia, former editor Sunil Mehra and restauranteur Ayesha Kapur.

In 2013, the Supreme Court had cancelled a Delhi high court order that had decriminalized homosexuality by overturning the outdated law and said it was the job of parliament to decide on scrapping laws.

That decision needs to be reconsidered because of constitutional issues, said the Supreme Court.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court had described Section 377 as a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. It had responded to a petition by Naz Foundation, which has fought for almost a decade for gay rights.

Although prosecution under section 377 is not common, gay activists say the police use the law to harass and intimidate members of their community.

HIGHLIGHTS

The FIR is unfair, unjustified and a direct attack on the freedom of the press, said the Editors Guild

It is clearly meant to browbeat a journalist whose investigation on the matter was of great public interest, the statement said

File photo used for representational purpose

NEW DELHI: The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)’s lodging of an FIR naming the Tribune+ in which news about the breach in the system was printed, and also the reporter who had filed the story, drew strong reactions from journalists’ bodies, which condemned it as an “attack on the freedom of the press”.

A statement issued by the Editors Guild said, “The Guild condemns UIDAI’s action to have the Tribune reporter booked by the police as it is clearly meant to browbeat a journalist whose investigation on the matter was of great public interest. It is unfair, unjustified and a direct attack on the freedom of the press.”

The statement, which gives details of the charges under which the reporter, Rachna Khaira, was booked – IPC sections 419 (punishment for cheating under impersonation), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery), 471 (using a forged document) and under sections of the IT Act and the Aadhar Act – asks the union ministry to withdraw the cases against her, and “conduct an impartial investigation into the matter.”

The Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps and Press Association too strongly objected and condemned the FIR registration. “Rather than addressing the loopholes which would actually ensure safety and security of the data and allay the general concerns about this, the UIDAI has chosen to persecute those whose actions appear to have been only in public interest,” read a statement issued by the journalists bodies collectively.

Criticising the FIR as “intimidatory, obstructionist and inimical to the pursuit of free, fair and independent journalism”, the statement asked for a withdrawal of the complaint against the reporter. A statement by the Foundation for Media Professionals, while referring to the FIR as an “assault on free speech”, said, “By allowing such FIRs to be registered, the government is clearly signalling that the functioning of UIDAI, however controversial, is out of bounds for journalists and other whistle-blowers.”

The UIDAI appears to lack basic understanding of how journalism works.

Khaira’s report conclusively demonstrates fundamental flaws in the way the Aadhaar programme has been structured. This is public interest journalism. The UIDAI should be welcoming and acting on reports like Khaira’s, not stifling them.

The UIDAI action raises concerns about whether it is meant to intimidate journalists and deter them from reporting freely on the Aadhaar programme. This is a blatant attack on the freedom of the press, as well as the public’s right to information. Other journalists and civil society groups who have revealed failings in the Aadhaar programme have been targeted as well. This must stop.

We also condemn the charges that have been brought against whistleblowers Anil Kumar, Sunil Kumar, and Raj, all of whom were mentioned in Rachna’s report. Such punitive action against sources and whistleblowers is completely unacceptable.

As a public authority, the UIDAI is answerable to the public. If there are weaknesses in the system, they need to be fixed. Shooting the messenger is not the responsible or accountable way forward. The media will not be cowed down by these legal browbeating tactics.

The NWMI calls upon the UIDAI to immediately withdraw the complaint against Rachna Khaira and her sources. Instead, it must direct its action against those who have compromised the security of the Aadhaar database.

‘I hate Muslims’: A book uncovers the bullying faced by Muslim children in many Indian schools

Nazia Erum’s book tells of Muslim children being beaten up and called terrorists by their classmates and teachers who look the other way, or worse.

File photo used for representation only

By invitation: Nazia Erum

What is it like to be a middle class Muslim parent in India today? Over the course of writing a book, I reached out to 145 Muslim families with kids studying in some of the top schools of the country. What I learnt was disturbing, to say the least. While parents today can ensure meals at malls, membership to sports complexes, education at leading institutions and clothes in vogue, what they cannot ensure is that their children will not be bullied for their religious affiliations. As many as 80 per cent of Muslim children I spoke to had experienced some kind of religious bullying, from as young as six.

The bullies were almost certainly taking their cues from their parents and what they picked up at home. But what was more worrying still is that some schools are also unconsciously creating religious divides. The catchment area of one of Delhi’s best-known public schools includes Jamia and Nizamuddin, two largely Muslim localities. The school offers foreign languages along with Sanskrit and Urdu. A teacher of the school tells me, “My section has mostly Urdu students and a few French students. While it was not an all-Muslim class, the ratio is definitely skewed. So, one of the parents wrote a letter to the administration saying they wanted their child’s section changed as there was too much of ‘M factor’ (as they put it) in their present section. And they were obliged.”

Across India, and especially in the north, many CBSE schools that have thirty or more Muslim students in a class, clump them together to form a new section altogether. As more Muslims embrace formal mainstream English-medium education, this trend is seeing a peak in recent years. Sanskrit is offered across most of India as an elective third language. It is usually offered as a choice against a regional language or a foreign language. Where there are a large number of Muslim students, often Urdu is offered as an elective. But many schools divide up the students of each year into sections based on the languages opted for. Thus, section A will comprise students who choose to study Sanskrit and section B of those who choose Urdu. This means that sections are not only divided along linguistic lines but also end up being divided along religious lines. For, with a few exceptions, most Muslim kids opt for Urdu and most non-Muslim kids choose Sanskrit.

We need to talk about the consequences of this beyond classrooms. When a 12-year-old child is separated from students of other religions, what are we inculcating subconsciously? Children hit adolescence in classes 6 to 8, and these are their most formative and impressionable years. When a child grows up in a school demarcated on religious lines, how deep will the dividing lines be drawn in our society? Will we ever be able to share a table or a plate?

“Never were differences out so open in schools before,” a parent from Bhopal, Raiqa Khan, tells me sadly. “I think this compartmentalisation of classes started since 2005 in Bhopal. I was also teaching in one of the leading schools at the time when it was introduced. The majority of the kids in a single section ended up being of a single religion. It did have an impact on the kids, as they were not ready to bond with students of other religions. Most of our friends are non-Muslims. My best friend is a Pandit. Earlier my son too had a healthy mix of friends from all religions. But (now), he has only Muslim friends. All the kids coming home are Muslims. That worries me. There is definitely a divide. I can feel it. I can see it,” Raiqa says.

When parents questioned this division they were told that timetables are easier to set and students do not need to be shuffled for a single class, and traffic in the school corridors is thus minimised. But when asked officially, school administrations denied the prevalence of any such practices. A school owner, on condition of anonymity, told me, “It makes economic sense for the administration to group students together according to language. It’s a simple case of maximising resources. The administrations are only thinking about how much money is being saved, not about the ripple effects in society.”

If students are compartmentalised this early they don’t get to learn about ‘others’. Students of one section don’t get time beyond classes to bond with students from other sections. They don’t share tiffins. They don’t make friends. If you ask the kids, they say, “Woh bante hi nahi hamare friends. Bas hi-hello ho jata hai. (They don’t become friends with us. We just greet each other in passing.)”

THE opposition parties, especially the Congress party, seem to have gathered their wits after displaying a pathetic loss of nerves in the face of the Bill criminalising triple talaq was introduced in Parliament.

It was shocking to see a Bill of this nature being introduced, discussed and approved in a span of a few hours. The rush itself should have raised eyebrows. But the Opposition got thoroughly confused and failed even to properly press the serious objections raised by its members like Sushmita Dev, Adhir Ranjan Chawdhury and Asaduddin Owaisi.Only a political fool or a naive person can accept the government’s claim that the intention behind the Bill is to liberate poor Muslim women. The Law Minister loftily said that it was insaniyat which was driving the Bill and not siyasat. The way he dissociated insaniyat from siyasat says a lot about the vision of politics that his party professes and pursues.

According to this view, it should be acceptable to divide people and create bitterness and hatred while doing politics. In fact, you should not even demand humanity from politics. That explains the ruthless use of metaphors implying anti-Muslim feeling in the election campaign by the senior leaders of his party.

In the recent Gujarat elections, the Prime Minister criminalised the very thought of a Muslim being a chief-ministerial candidate. He divulged a secret that the Congress party wanted to make a Muslim the Chief Minister of Gujarat! As if it was against the Constitution or anti-national for a Muslim to be proposed for the top job in the state!Ironically, the Congress rushed to assure the people of Gujarat that there was no question of a Muslim like Ahmed Patel being made the Chief Minister if the party won the elections! It was sad to see Patel, a Gujarati to the core, clarifying that he was never in the race. That his name was being used to scare the Hindu electorate of Gujarat was very clear. But our learned Law Minster not only approved it but also campaigned on this political platform!

There was no question of a Muslim being treated as a citizen who could claim equal rights as enjoyed by other citizen. Let us hypothetically assume that if in place of a Muslim man like Ahmed Patel there was some Muslim woman! How would the BJP have reacted? How did it react when the name of Sonia Gandhi came up for the prime-ministerial post? The very thought of her being prime minister created such horror that the gentle ladies of the BJP threatened to go get their hair shaved off and sleep on bare floors for the rest of their lives! A politics which disenfranchises Muslims or Christians and yet claims to be their saviour in any sphere of their life!

The Bill criminalising triple talaq cannot but be seen in the light of this politics. A government which is firmly against criminalising marital rape, arguing that it would break families, cannot say that it can go to any length to protect Muslim women from the tyranny of their men! For, the proposal to make marital rape a crime was truly human as it did not differentiate between a Hindu woman and a Muslim or Christian woman. Muslim women could also have availed themselves of this law if wronged by their husbands!Some members rightly asked the government that if it was so serious about the human rights of women, why did it not even take up the issue of fair representation of women in the elected bodies by introducing the Women Reservation Bill. After all, it applies to all women, does not differentiate between Hindu or Sikh or Muslim women! It was a true insani call!

The government is, however, concerned about the human rights of Muslim women. It wants to save them from the tyrannical, orthodox, backward, cruel Muslim men! The state has to be on the side of the hapless Muslim women who would otherwise be driven out of their homes by their husbands by pronouncing triple talaq!Jurists, who cannot be called misogynist, have repeatedly said that this law is unnecessary. They are not for triple talaq. There is also a wider support to the demand of Muslim women to do away with his practice. The Supreme Court has held that triple talaq cannot be treated as talaq.After all this, why this rush to criminalise Muslim men?

The Bill actually addresses a Hindu constituency. It is the same constituency which is built and nursed by the fear of cow-eating, gym-going muscular Muslim men eyeing and grabbing Hindu women to breed Muslims and out-populate Hindus in their own land. They need to be shown as cruel not only in relation to Hindus or Hindu women, but also as being naturally cruel, even to their women! Muslim men are themselves a conspiracy against the nation and Hindus! Since they cannot be driven them out of this land because of the secular sin of Gandhi and Nehru, they can at least be disciplined! Muslim women in this scenario are being presented as prisoners of their men who need to be liberated from their oppression.

The idea of freeing Muslim women from their men is very seductive and powerful for this politics. It explains a half-truth that the Prime Minister peddled: that his government had made it possible for Muslim women to go to Haj without a male escort, thus allowing them to exercise their religiosity autonomously. Soon, the fact came out that his government was merely following the change introduced by the host country Saudi Arabia which had allowed groups of women above the age of 45 to go to Haj without a male escort way back in 2014.

The state under this regime wants Muslim women to be individuals, human beings free from the familial chains. Is it not strange that Hindu women are constantly being reminded by this very politics about the primacy of marital relations, family, duty towards their children? That it never exhorts them to come out of the shadow of their men and be only woman human beings?